APS rejects plea to alter stance on climate change

The American Physical Society (APS) has "overwhelmingly rejected" a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming. The APS turned down the request on the recommendations of a six-person committee chaired by atomic physicist Daniel Kleppner from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The committee was set up by APS president Cherry Murray in July, when the society received the proposal for changing its statement, which had originally been drawn up in November 2007. It has spent the last four months carrying out what the APS calls "a serious review of existing compilations of scientific research" and took soundings from its members. "We recommended not accepting the proposal," Kleppner told physicsworld.com. "The [APS] council almost unanimously decided to go with that."

Different positions

The official APS position on climate change says that "emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate" and adds that there is "incontrovertible" evidence that global warming is occurring. The APS also wants reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to start immediately. "If no mitigating actions are taken," it says, "significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."

However, the petition's signatories claim that "measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20–21st century changes [in climate] are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today". They say that various natural processes, such as ocean cycles and solar variability, could account for variations in the Earth's climate on the time scale of decades and centuries.

"Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate," the petition concludes. It also points to "extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals".

Next steps

Although the APS council turned down the request, it has, however, agreed to one proposal from Kleppner's committee: that the society's Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) should "examine the statement for improvements in clarity and tone". Princeton University atomic physicist Will Happer, who was one of those leading the proposal for change, sees that fact as a form of vindication. "They basically sent both statements back to their committee on public affairs and asked them to reconsider," says Happer. "I think it's a big victory for us. Many of [the people who signed the petition] took quite a bit of risk in signing this statement."

However, the APS firmly refutes Happer's reading. "The council has, in effect, said we reject outright the replacement of our statement," points out APS spokesperson Tawanda Johnson. "We are certainly not rejecting the 2007 statement. It's still on our website. POPA reviews statements every five years; it would have come up for review anyway."

Kleppner also points out that the call for change came from a small minority of the APS's 47,000 members. "This is certainly not a majority opinion," he says. "Most other physicists have come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence."

About the author

Peter Gwynne is Physics World's North America correspondent

66 comments

PROOF AGAINST ALL ARGUMENTS

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer

CONTROL EARTH'S CLIMATE?

This is the first sensible thing APS has done in a long time and as a former member of the organization, it makes me feel good. I think we need to step up the efforts to control the global warming.

Earth's climate has changed and Earth's climate will continue to change because Earth is heated by a violently stormy star - the Sun.

Earth is intimately connected to the Sun and literally moves through the outer layer of the Sun (the heliosphere) .

See the historical account of the solar eruption in September of 1859 and its immediate impact on Earth [Stuart Clark, "The Sun Kings: The Unexpected Tragedy of Richard Carrington and the Tale of How Modern Astronomy Began" Princeton University Press, 2007, 256 pages]

A more immediate question

If signing the petition represented a significant professional risk, then there is a problem with the structure of the American Physical Society that tends to cast doubt on any assertions attributed to that body, especially if the text of this petition contained only concerns about the reliability of a body of evidence and a call for additional investigation before reaching a formal conclusion.

I would be much more interested in information confirming or denying the assertion about the APS than in reading their published collective opinions about global warming.

APS and Gandhi

I see some similarity between the decision of APS and the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi - that is the principle of simplicity. Of course, this was preached by several Indian leaders in the past and Gandhi is latest. But, today, we are forgetting this principle and everyone is trying to purchase TATA's Nano-car. In my own city, Pune, from Maharashtra the number of cars has increased very largely. This leads to excessive consumption of fossil-fuel, air pollution - apart from traffic problems and wastage of man-hours. I could have purchased car 20 years back - "without" taking loan from a bank. But I did not and will not purchase a car because I do not want to add to global warming - and this I tell to my students also. So I am happy with the decision of APS.

Well done APS

Proof without investigation...there is so much we have yet to prove yet we base much of our technology on these principles.Our observations have led us to these conclusions. In the same way that the doubters ask for proof of humanities impact upon the Earths climate give me proof we have no impact. Prove it is all the sun.As way of evidence I suggest you follow the link below and read this article. It is on the Royal Society website. Probably the most prestigious scientific body on Earth. If even they have accepted the truth of global warming dont you think there is at least some truth in it?

Proof without investigation...there is so much we have yet to prove yet we base much of our technology on these principles.Our observations have led us to these conclusions. (...)the Royal Society website. Probably the most prestigious scientific body on Earth. If even they have accepted the truth of global warming dont you think there is at least some truth in it?

Probably the most well worded and intelligent argument in dispelling global warming nay-sayers.I fully agree with these arguements and always try to keep an open mind about these arguements but evidence points overwhelmingly in favour of the 'Greenhouse Gas' theory.The least people could do is put aside personal predjudices for the good of the planets and it's inhabitants.Even if Global Warming is proven wrong with no reasonable doubt at least humanities technology will have evelved and we will hopefully humanity will be equipt with a much sytems and means of travel and to produce and use energy.It is counter productive to resist positive progress on a global scale

What % of the atmosphere is CO2? - 0.038% or thereabouts isn't it - hardly massive.

Notice people mention the Artic shrinking, but no one mentions the volanic activity there, especially the undersea stuff which can't be observed easily - Now I'm sure hot magma next to ice would have a quicker/larger melting effect and a bit of gas a few thousand feet up.

oh an whilst we're at it, stop the ice breakers from moving through then maybe it'll not all float off in bits!!!!

oh and dont' even start on the Polar Bears - more are shot each year than by any method of death by all accounts.

They're using the media to manipulate us all - well at least try.

Until there's concrete evvidence then I'll be monitoring both sides of the fence.

GOLDEN RULE: NAS HAS THE GOLD AND RULES

. . . It is on the Royal Society website. Probably the most prestigious scientific body on Earth. If even they have accepted the truth of global warming dont you think there is at least some truth in it?

There is "some truth" in the statement that the weight of an elephant is increased by each flea on his rear.

Relative to the Sun, the influence of CO2 on Earth's climate is like that of the flea on the elephant [See "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun," E&E (2009)].

In rejecting the plea to speak the truth about climate change, APS was simply following the Golden Rule: He who has the gold rules. On this matter, He is NAS.

NAS (National Academy of Sciences) makes budget recommendations on the budgets of each federal research agency. The President of NAS is Ralph Cicerone, a climatologist.

I observed Dr. Ralph Cicerone in action a few years ago at the NAS Headquarters in Washington, DC, when I attempted to address the Chairman of the Budgetary Committee of the US House of Representatives.

What this petition campagin was really about

I've studied this campaign in detail, including connections with a few thinktanks, comparisons with related past petitions, its use as a PR tool (not really to change APS), the unusual demographics of the signers compare to the APS (older, almost all male, likely very politically conservative, etc), the social network by which it spread (even though it is supposed to look like a widespread grassroots effort). Of the 206 signers, 1 is a real climate scientist, and handful more have published a few papers in credible journals, often refuted rather quickly. Some hae published outright psuedoscience. There's a detailed person-by-person analysis, with quotes, to help the reader assess the level of credibility. See:www.desmogblog.com…ate-petition-exposed

It's 128 pages, but most of that is detailed backup; the first 25 pages is enough to get the idea.

No more than a small handful of signers do or have done anything close to climate science research, and about 40% of the signers are retired, hence "risk" is minimal, except for being recognized as silly. Some of what they signed would be recognized as wrong by any competent gardener or many 10-year-old farm kids.

Global Warming

The only question we have to answer is: Does man-made CO2 cause Global Warming?In an article by Dr Fred Singer (www.geocraft.com…reenhouse_data.html) he calculates the % of man-made CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel. The data was supplied by US Department of Energy. Man-made CO2 represents only 0.117% of the total greenhouse gases.How could such a tiny amount of greenhouse gas have any effect on global warming?

Global Warming & Cooling

It seems that the APS has let down the world with their ‘run and hide’ behind the establishment approach on climate change. So called climate change abatement will cost us, here in the UK £18 billion per annum for 40 years.

I did not expect the APS to come out and bluntly state that CO2 was only a minor contributor to global warming (which in fact, it is, as posted by ‘hrichman’ – good paper by Dr Fred Singer explaining the GH effect of the various GHGs) but I had hoped they would take a position of ‘doubt’ on this false ‘scientific consensus’ on AGW and importantly cast much ‘doubt and uncertainty’ on the whole process of the UN-IPCC, a body established to ‘confirm and promote’ the AGW hypothesis. Biased judgement and exclusion is not science.

I have read peer reviewed papers from many APS members as well as Chemical Engineers, Physicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists and Geologists that appear in my humble opinion to make more sense than the UN-IPCC with its fixed mantra. I have my own list of over 300 mostly professors and holding doctorates. Some are indeed retired and Dr Joanne Simpson, formerly of NASA, explains this from her own experience. The fair minded may ask why scientists sceptical of AGW are muzzled until they are free of their government employers.

There is a wealth of evidence from eminent IPCC expert reviewers and contributing authors that the whole IPCC process is biased and hence flawed. I would quote such eminent scientists as Professors John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Richard Courtney, Paul Reiter, Ross McKitrick, Drs Vincent Gray and Philip Lloyd et al. The IPCC is a politicised international government body, make no mistake here. Remember Dr Mann’s hockey stick curve was a contrivance, debunked by Dr McKitrick and McIntyre. Reading Dr Richard Muller’s comments on the debunking was interesting as he is not an AGW sceptic but described the flawed hockey stick curve as a ‘bombshell.’

Reading the temperature graphs against the CO2 Scripps data is very revealing. Whilst both increased during the 20th Century, it is evident that CO2 increased on a regular and continuous profile whilst the temperature profile was erratic and showed long periods of cooling which gave way to global cooling scares in the 70’s and early 80’s.

The present situation is that there has been no warming on average since 1998 and cooling is now once more in evidence despite a continued increase in human CO2 emissions. This yet again invalidates the IPCC GC models which ‘posed scenarios’ of runaway global warming for the early part of the 21st century (translated by the media to ‘predicted’ runaway global warming). Facts trump theory! There is much evidence now that the sun is the major culprit (ref. Drs Larry Vardiman, Henrik Svensmark and Friis-Christensen) with higher solar activity allowing cosmic radiation to reduce cloud cover. Please remember that the IPCC models only include positive feedback through water vapour and not negative feedback through low cloud reflection (see work by Dr Roy Spencer on this). Water vapour at 10,000 ppmv vs CO2 at 386 ppmv means that natural water vapour and natural changes to it from solar/cosmic radiation changes along with natural oceanic flows would seem most likely to rule climate.

The exaggerations of the IPCC’s work from Messrs Gore, Hansen and Stern should be challenged by every thinking scientist as they are completely contrived and have no place in science.

One last point from one of the eminent scientists, who is not even declared as a sceptic, Dr Benjamin Santer, author of the 2007 IPCC report chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming stated:"It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC report) chapter "on the detection of greenhouse warming." I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say that the attribution issue [man-made climate change] was a done deal."

Rod Eaton's comment

The present situation is that there has been no warming on average since 1998 and cooling is now once more in evidence despite a continued increase in human CO2 emissions.

Two points, please.

It is extraordinarily difficult to find out where the atmosphere sits on the IR absorption curve. That is, it does not seem possible to say how black or transparent the atmosphere is at the wavelengths which CO2 absorbs. Plainly, if it is already very black, then adding more CO2 will make little difference. However, additions will have a relatively large affect if it is largely transparent at these wavelengths. It appears, however, that GCMs use essentially straight line relationships. If you add CO2, you get hotter. Thus the alarming diagrams withthe Earth looking like a red cherry.

I am agnostic on the warming impact of CO2, but the fervor of the true believers makes me think that things may be a degree over-simplified.

Second, the leveling off of temperature rises over the recent past coincides with a prolonged solar maximum, when incoming radiation is higher than normal. We would expect to see sharp warming if the underlying trend was up. We do not, which is a problem for the theory. It is a particular problem fro those who continue to point to other events as evidence that something is changing.

Indeed, most of the evidence which is advanced for contemporary warming depends on sea currents: the polar warming, for example. However, not even the strongest proponent of climate change would say that current atmospheric warming was enough to shift ocean currents. By contrast, the antropogenic change in the nitrogen and sulphur cycles have provied enormous increases in oceanic fertility, presumably stimulating plankton at just the time when we are culling higher level predators - fish - at a global scale. This ought to increase absorbtion directly by the oceans. SE Asia is being affected by abnormally hot seas, which are certainly not being driven by a locally hotter atmosphere. This is not something that has been examined, however, and perhaps ought to be?

I don't think human activity has NO affect on the climate. But I am starting to suffer from climate-change fatigue. It's everywhere I turn, I can't help noticing that there's a lot of people who stand to gain from it, and it's crowding out the other important things, like overpopulation and pandemics and rapacious activity and energy security. I was rather struck by Ian Plimer on the radio yesterday morning, and think maybe the guy has a point:

Terms of reference

rlockyer:… What % of the atmosphere is CO2? - 0.038% or thereabouts isn't it - hardly massive. Quote:

Quote:

hrichman:… Man-made CO2 represents only 0.117% of the total greenhouse gases. How could such a tiny amount of greenhouse gas have any effect on global warming? Quote:

Quote:

…There is "some truth" in the statement that the weight of an elephant is increased by each flea on his rear.Relative to the Sun, the influence of CO2 on Earth's climate is like that of the flea on the elephant [See "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun," E&E (2009)]. Quote:

Relative size (physical in particular) is not an indicator of relative influence

From a theological standpoint, (for the benefit of Oliver K. Manuel) consider David and Goliath, or his example of the flea and the elephant, if the flea is carrying a virus or other pathogen it is indeed possible that it could effectively kill the elephant. Discussing the relative sizes of fleas and elephants is irrelevant if the problem is how to stop the extinction of elephants. Possibly a more realistic example is mosquitoes, humans and malaria.

There are a myriad of examples in science and nature where relative influence has absolutely no relation to relative physical size. I would suggest that using such metaphors as a basis of evidence shows a distinct lack of scientific understanding. An everyday example is the ordinary water tap, it takes little effort to turn the water on and off but if try to stop the water flow by putting your thumb over the tap’s spout you will find it very difficult or impossible to do.

In terms of global warming CO2, and the other GHGs, punch above their weight so small changes their amount has a much greater effect on the climate.

One could apply the same type of reasoning to sea levels, the oceans are over 10,000m deep in places so using the ‘size’ argument, a rise in sea level of a ten metres or so would be insignificant, which is obviously not true. Or is it! It is true for terrestrial dwellers, particularly those in coastal regions, but organisms living in the sea would probably notice very little, if any, difference. This highlights the fact that in order to establish whether something is true/real or not it is also important to know the [bold]terms of reference[bold] surrounding the statement.

Thanks to OliverSparrow - very interesting post

In support of Oliver Sparrow's point on the way in which CO2 absorbs IR radiation, this saturation in absorption of IR by CO2 has been likened to blacking out a window. The first coat of black paint stops much of the light, the second most of the light the third coat all of the light and further coats have minimal effect.Dr. David Stockwell (Ecological Modeller) states that: “The increase in temperature due to the greenhouse effect has a maximum. At this maximum, additional greenhouse gas absorbers do not increase the temperature to the limits detectable in this set-up.”Ian McQueen (Chemical Engineer) disputed any potential global warming threat in 2008 during a presentation to the Canadian Nuclear Society he noted: Carbon dioxide does have a small warming effect but 32 per cent of the first few molecules do the majority of the warming.Marc Hendrickx (Geologist) working to assess geologic risks and currently obtaining his PhD makes the point that temperature rises due to CO2 emissions have already been accounted for and input of additional CO2 will not result in increased global temperatures on their own. This is due to the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature. This relationship explains why carbon dioxide levels have been much higher during past geological eras and have not resulted in run away greenhouse conditions.” Reference to much higher atmospheric concentrations in the past are made by such eminent scientists as:Dr Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist), Professor of Geology at Carlton University in Canada who asserts from the geological perspective: when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.Further support comes from Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences who explains that "Even if the concentration of greenhouse gases double, man would not perceive the temperature impact" Although more concerned with water vapour as the primary GHG, Professor Geoffrey G. Duffy, in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ also makes the point: "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.".Although much of the science now refuting AGW centres around the failure of the IPCC GC models to predict reality and the demonstrated effect of cosmic radiation (following solar cycles and solar wind changes on low cloud formation producing negative feedback (ref Svensmark, Spencer and Vardiman et al), the CO2 saturation theory may well explain why CO2 does not have much influence in its own right.On Oliver’s second point, the advantages of warming, should it re-start, there is also a body of scientists (I have listed) who regard warming as beneficial to ecology and health and cite the colder eras as the most unhealthy and least productive. I always think of how we could have more sunny summers here if our climate changed to something like the South of France or Spain….unlikely I suspect. Just a note to Ragtime: Sir, or Madam, I note you are from the Czech Republic. This is a wonderful place and you have Vaclav Klaus, a visionary politician much admired here in the UK. Praha is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. However, I respectfully suggest that your post confuses weather with climate. Many AGW sceptics (realists) recognise that local weather conditions can be influenced by human activity (eg urban warming and smog) but not on a global scale.

Response to Nick Cook

Quotes from hrichman:What % of the atmosphere is CO2? - 0.038% or thereabouts isn't it - hardly massive. Man-made CO2 represents only 0.117% of the total greenhouse gas [EFFECT]

Both quotes are essentially correct; Mr hrichman just omitted to add the word 'EFFECT.' Dr Singer's paper explains how the different GHGs have different effects as a proportion of total greenhouse effect:

Water Vapour rates 95% of the effect (being the most abundant and variable GHG),man-made CO2 only has 0.117% GH effect. CH4 and N2O are also accounted for along with the fluoro-carbons. Each is evaluated in terms first of its quantity then of its total GH effect. Also these figures are then further broken down to show which proportions are anthropogenic and which natural. The math is verifiable but the work was done in 2000 from memory. I have uprated the figures and the man-made CO2 contribution is still has less than 0.15% EFFECT on greenhouse.

I would add that the GC models have to invoke unheard of and highly inflated values of lambda (well above the text book values- ref Steffan-Boltzmann Law) for CO2 and positive feedback through water vapour (without acknowledging NEGATIVE feedback from increased low cloud cover reflecting IR) to give their overstated scenarios for doom and gloom. The Stern Report inflates the IPCC GC model figures and working bakc through the math, this requires inflating lambda to around 10 times the thermodynamics text book value.

The thing I know for sure is that there is no unanimous view on the matter of global warming among scientists. That part would be perfectly normal, as we don't have adequate climate models at hand and there are (as this story illustrates) many ways to interpret the data available to us. What worries me, is that so many scientists have chosen one of two opposite opinions on a matter that has become a global business of emissions quotas and is being debated in a manner that resembles, say, election debates far closer than the scientific method of finding things out. It's easier to take strong opinions and thus become a member of some fanatic group (and be admired by its believers) than to admit the evidence and our ability to draw scientifically sound conclusions from it just aren't good enough yet.

The Establishment

One simple point which I have avoided raising before is this:

If scientists of yore had never dissented from a one sided biased politicised pseudo-scientific establishment, surgeons would not wash their hands, quantum physics would have remained unknown, man would not have landed on the Moon, the cavalry would have charged against tanks, the internet would never have been created and in fact we'd probably all still swing in trees.

The Royal Society was mentioned. Would that be the same Royal Society that wrote to the Lords of the Admiralty in 1817 telling them how the ice was abating in the Arctic due to new sources of warming hitherto unknown?

Hiding behind the establishment is not science it is an easy way out for those who cannot or worse will not think for themselves to look at the evidence and see if it really relates to convntional wisdom.

There should be no fear to think and act as one considers best for ones people. Abolish the CLIMATE OF FEAR! Since Senator Inhofe made it politically acceptable, more and more climate sceptics are coming forward to state their true views.

It is a disgrace to the USA that Dr Joanna Simpson (not the only one) could not come out and state her realist (and very knowledgeable) scientific views on climate change until she retired from NASA. Cited as one of the most brilliant scientists of our time, the first woman PhD in Meteorology - muzzled by the establishment That, Mr Helios, is why it is political because the establishment, the UN-IPCC, the governments and sadly the institutions and the funding are also 'political.'

I will always try to stand with science and remember what I was taught at school...think for yourself. Truth from knowledge has to matter more than following the crowd.

What the APS response was really about

I've studied this campaign in detail, including connections with a few thinktanks, comparisons with related past petitions, its use as a PR tool (not really to change APS), the unusual demographics of the signers compare to the APS (older, almost all male, likely very politically conservative, etc), the social network by which it spread (even though it is supposed to look like a widespread grassroots effort).

APS has been in bed with NAS for the past fifty years, at least since the return of the Apollo Mission to the Moon in 1969.

That is why:

a.) Only older APS members remember when physics was a rational search for truth instead of a search for more funds from NAS and the federal agencies it controls (NASA, DOE, etc), and

b.) NASA and DOE scientists and most APS members are completely oblivious to experimental data that showed Earth's climate is controlled by the unstable remains of a supernova that exploded 5 Gy (5 billion years) ago, ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun, and is heated today by repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core.

Proof without investigation...there is so much we have yet to prove yet we base much of our technology on these principles.Our observations have led us to these conclusions. In the same way that the doubters ask for proof of humanities impact upon the Earths climate give me proof we have no impact. Prove it is all the sun.As way of evidence I suggest you follow the link below and read this article. It is on the Royal Society website. Probably the most prestigious scientific body on Earth. If even they have accepted the truth of global warming dont you think there is at least some truth in it?

Same evidence, different conclusion

This is tedious.Everyone points to the same evidence as their basis for arguement. No conclusion can be drawn if the meaning of the evidence can be disputed.Also, those posting links to odd websites that have 'new and startling "evidence"' are obviously easily impressed by tabloid like hysteria.Anyone can lie and most easily so on the internet.

Immediate Change and Immediate Ignorance

So many organizations with the analysis that climate change is occurring due to human activities say changes must be made immediately. Well they said that 5 years ago, yet we're all alive, aren't we?

Until they take a middle road many people will see these views as just a bunch of high-class scientists trying to protect their reputation.

There is a degree of climate change that is tolerable - our survival and the lengthening of the growing season is proof. Instead of saying that all ways of life must be changed immediately, greater use could be put by finding the most damaging sources of pollution that we can fix.

Suggesting us to fix a problem we do not yet have the technology from is an expensive mistake. Superfund projects in the U.S. have had costs reduced to 1% former cost and less due to biological and chemical discoveries.

Some problems solve themselves. Increases in gas prices, an easy transition to renewable energy, and patience to let science "catch up" would solve much of this debate.

greenhouse gases and global warming

Well, we have had a lengthy discussion on global warming in another article in this very issue, therefore, there is no point in repeating the arguments.

However, one issue that has come up repeatedly is that increase in the greenhouse gases is like flea on the elephant.

This argument is fine as long as co2 and oxygen are uniformly distributed across the world.

I am afraid these studies do not point out that concentration of the greenhouse gases within the cities is well beyond the tolerable limits of the human beings. In fact, there is substantial difference in the indoor level of co2 and outdoor levels. Indoor levels can at times just be double of the outdoor levels.

Take for example the case of a city like Mumbai, the co2 levels are about 300 ppm in sea-facing ares but in some other pockets co2 levels are as high as 1230 ppm.

In New York co2 levels are 385 ppm. New York produces as much greenhouse gases as do Ireland and Portugal.

Average co2 level at present is about 385 ppm.

Even in the pockets of the cities where co2 levels are within the acceptable limits, the levels increase to as much as three to four times during peak hours and we are exposed to these levels twice a day for substantially long period.

APS Consensus supports AGW Objectivity/Skepticism

As far as I can quickly conclude the APS AGW skeptical consensus is the clear 5:1 voting majority of 165 AGW objectivists to 33 AGW “Believers” and 46,802 not sure.

Of the 47,000 current APS members (to date that haven't resigned) 46,802 have no opinion about AGW, 165 (160 petition signers and 5 council members) hold that AGW should be addressed scientifically skeptically/objectively and 33 (27 leaked number of councilors and 6 review committee members supporting AGW uber significance) hold that AGW should be “Believed”. While the opinionless and most of the 33 “Believers” are anonymous, only the 160 signed petitioners have been publicly acknowledged.

How about a proper scientific public debate and then a proper survey of the membership? I suppose the overturning of the world's economy promoting possibly millions of deaths in undeveloped countries based upon faulty modeler's projections is not significant enough.

Is one Physicsworld issue of even numbers of pro/con positions too much to allow? A year's worth would be more appropriate.

Realisation Dawns

Oliver, I think you are, in fact, Dr. Oliver K. Manuel, Professor of Nuclear Chemistry, University of Missouri?I thought I recognised your 'flee on an elephant' analogy.

Many thanks for joining the debate. I have been researching the AGW hypothesis for three years now and I have so many climate realists on my lists that it took a while for the penny to drop...my apologies, Sir.

Our numbers are growing but it is an uphill struggle against a political wall of 'blind belief' in AGW. As a local politician and energy industry analyst - mainly working on UN-IPCC Clean Development Mechanisms to earn carbon credits, I have seen the economic and indeed technical dangers to our societies of this CO2 abatement mantra, which seeks to muzzle us.

I have read that other planets in the solar system, e.g. Mars were warming at around the same time the Earth was warming. I believe this adds weight to the solar related theories. Solar activity levels seem to mathematically correlate closer to the erratic swings in global average temperature over the past 110 years than the regularity of CO2 concentration increases. CO2 as you say is the flee on the elephant.

My lists are not short of geologists (as you would expect)- all with the general view that the 20th Century warming followed by 21st Century cooling is a normal and natural process and has been so for millions of years. Atmospheric Scientists seem to point to the warming of the surface of the Earth, whilst the lower atmosphere remains cooler, as being wholly inconsistent (as are many other aspects) with the GHG warming hypothesis of the 'believers.'

The 'establishment' believers on the APS committee have got it wrong....not surprisingly, I had the same problem politically here in attempting to withdraw my council from an anti-CO2 commitment but we fight on for reason to return.

Not much to fear from CO2

"...There is no proof CO2 is a pollutant. It has never killed or harmed anyone.(*) CO2 is a synergistic gas of life for plants and animals. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen. Humans and animals breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2. Humans are in danger when CO2 concentrations reach 50,000 parts per million (ppm). At present the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is 385 ppm. Historically the amount of atmospheric CO2 has never reached a level where it is dangerous for humans. Sailors in U.S. submarines work in CO2 levels of 8000 ppm with no ill effects. Crowded auditoriums, may reach 10,000 ppm. The recommended threshold level in civilian workspaces for an 8-hour day is 5000 ppm...."

(*)Of course when the author says "It has never killed or harmed anyone." he is referring to normal human experiences; there are known cases of natural CO2 outgasing in which dozens [or more] of people have been asphyxiated. This DOES not mean that CO2 is a pollutant; it means that, in high enough concentrations [50k ppm], it is an asphyxiant - it suffocates you.

Under normal circumstances, there are no problems caused by present levels of atmospheric CO2 until one reaches concentrations more than 100x present levels.

Nor is it capable of contributing very much to any perceived global warming as doubling CO2 level does double warming. Rather the warming contribution from CO2 follows a nearly logarithmic curve and has pretty much maxed out in that respect.

Aaah ...what's the use arguing with the AGW crowd? One becomes so frustrated when no amount of factual data will convince you that your "religion" is NOT true.

The true path of science always involves a hearty dose of skepticism. If that displeases you of the AGW persuasion, too bad.

Agree with s501100kross

This is also my own understanding of CO2's effect on humans / animals...non-toxic but can asphyxiate if in sufficient concentration to significantly reduce oxygen level.

Sushnil has his own rather different view of CO2. He likes to portray CO2 as a toxic pollutant, which of course, factually it is not!

I also concur with your difficulty in trying to explain alternative views of climate change to disciples of AGW. Theirs is a religious tenet with no room for free thought or new scientific evidence, which could shake their dogma.

Upon finding the link a few days ago I discovered that I'd read about a fifth of them, starting in about 2006 when I discovered there really was something to the skeptic claims. My epiphany was rooted in the Shaviv & Veizer (GSA Today, 2003) results; when an astrophysicist and a geochemist independently find the same signal, one celestial and the other rooted in fossil isotope ratios, we should take notice.

No one I know of is unaware or unaccepting of the fact of CO2 IR absorption or that of other gases; the real debate is whether clouds make the world warmer and greenhouse gas warming (with more evaporation and therefore more clouds) is subject to positive feedbacks, or whether clouds make us cooler and so increases in CO2 (and other gases) make more clouds which reflect more sunlight away from the planet, and so are bound by negative feedback.

Negative feedback is associated with stable systems and positive feedback is associated with unstable systems. The 500 million+ years of the temperature proxies from our oceans (again, Shaviv & Veizer 2003) show a remarkable stability between a maxima and minima that are revisited on a regular basis. It seems to me with the claims of positive feedback warming and past levels of CO2 dwarfing current levels (mammals evolved with CO2 as high as 1800 ppm), there ought to be at least one instance of positive feedback warming in the record.

The only candidate for that warming event I am aware of is the Permian-Triassic extinction of about 251 million years ago, but that is roughly coincident with the galactic cosmic ray minima of the past 500 million years which tends to support the theories of physicists such as Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Nir Shaviv and others, including CERN's Jasper Kirkby who had his CLOUD experiment funding yanked in the late '90's by IPCC political machinations. Physics is a decade behind where it could be because it was politically incorrect to be investigating non-CO2 warming, and the CLOUD funding was only made available after the simple Danish SKY experiment (Svensmark et al., Feb '07) relying on natural cosmic rays showed results.

The IPCC bandwagon started rolling in the '80's and has been remarkably effective in quashing science to the contrary. Skeptical science is held to an unusually high standard for an emergent understanding while major issues of hidden methodologies and missing or even possibly cherry picked (whether by intent or by flawed methodology) data by mainstream researchers are ignored by IPCC partisans.

The science is not settled but I have little doubt that when it does settle, the current IPCC blessed climate models will not have survived without major revision.

If signing the petition represented a significant professional risk...

It was characterized as a risk by the leading proponent of the petition, and I'm not sure I can take his assessment as being completely objective.

To clarify my comment, it's easy to claim that a hostile political environment has led to a 'chilling effect' (no pun intended) suppressing inquiry into some topic, but that's a particularly serious claim when a scientific body is involved, and it's straightforward to test the idea: perform a properly phrased anonymous poll of a statistically significant, random sample of the group that's supposedly experiencing the chilling effect. If it's not done by partisans, and the method is peer-reviewed before publication, then the results would be reliable.

If no chilling effect is found, we needn't waste any more time with false accusations or the people who made them. On the other hand, if the accusations are confirmed, we needn't waste any more time with official position statements from the APS. A result suitable for publication in any respectable journal would be sufficient to decide the question.

The bottom line is that humans move too damn much. This *need to acheive* things is not mindful. It is biology commanding you. This lack of sensibility is perhaps why homo sapiens sapiens out-bred neanderthals.

Be ardently curious, but casually so. Proceed gradually and considerately. Leap only when transcendence is imminent.

I thought that was what you meant, s501100kross. I was reminded in an email from James Peden, Atmospheric Physicist, only today that CO2 has already absorbed most of the IR it can in its 14.77 micron band. This means that further increaes in CO2 even to double or treble todays values of 386 ppmv, will have minimal effect on global temperature.

I note Greg Goodknight has read the stirling work by Drs Veizer and Shaviv. Solar variablity. the solar / cosmic radiation balance and the effect through water vapour / clouds (negative or cooling feedack) really does appear to be the most significant mechanism ruling global temperature changes. This supports Dr Oliver Manuel's point that CO2 is the flea on the back of the solar elephant.

The present situation is that there has been no warming on average since 1998 and cooling is now once more in evidence despite a continued increase in human CO2 emissions.

Two points, please.

It is extraordinarily difficult to find out where the atmosphere sits on the IR absorption curve. That is, it does not seem possible to say how black or transparent the atmosphere is at the wavelengths which CO2 absorbs. Plainly, if it is already very black, then adding more CO2 will make little difference. However, additions will have a relatively large affect if it is largely transparent at these wavelengths. It appears, however, that GCMs use essentially straight line relationships. If you add CO2, you get hotter. Thus the alarming diagrams withthe Earth looking like a red cherry.

I am agnostic on the warming impact of CO2, but the fervor of the true believers makes me think that things may be a degree over-simplified.

Second, the leveling off of temperature rises over the recent past coincides with a prolonged solar maximum, when incoming radiation is higher than normal. We would expect to see sharp warming if the underlying trend was up. We do not, which is a problem for the theory. It is a particular problem fro those who continue to point to other events as evidence that something is changing.

Indeed, most of the evidence which is advanced for contemporary warming depends on sea currents: the polar warming, for example. However, not even the strongest proponent of climate change would say that current atmospheric warming was enough to shift ocean currents. By contrast, the antropogenic change in the nitrogen and sulphur cycles have provied enormous increases in oceanic fertility, presumably stimulating plankton at just the time when we are culling higher level predators - fish - at a global scale. This ought to increase absorbtion directly by the oceans. SE Asia is being affected by abnormally hot seas, which are certainly not being driven by a locally hotter atmosphere. This is not something that has been examined, however, and perhaps ought to be?

This comment and the previous one, highlight a very serious deficiency in the IPCCs presentation of the evidence, a problem highlighted by my late friend and colleague, Dr A. E. Brain, a retired physicist from SRI in California. The IPCC has dismissed the Medievial climatic optimum as a 'local event',yet excellent white wines were produced here in Lincoln in the UK, and the North East passage across northen Russia was free of ice for a large part of the year. Settlers in Greenland were able to grow wheat and other crops - some 'local event'! These are documented historical facts. There has been great play made of the fact that the IPCC predictions are backed up by extensive computer modelling, yet examination of their own statements shows a highly averaged view of the forcing mechanisms concerned. I am reminded of Laplace's arrogant statement to Napoleon, that if he knew the position and velocity of every particle of matter in the universe, he could predict their future positions with abosolute certainty! A far greater mathematician, Henri Poincare, proved this position completely untenable in 1892. The governing equations of all climate mechanisms are highly non-linear - if we could make a model that accurately represented the full range of every variable,even if we used every computer on the planet, it would run slower than the actual climate itself. This is why weather forcasts are only accurate over a few days before divergence sets in!Mervyn K. Hobden

GREG IS RIGHT

The IPCC bandwagon started rolling in the '80's and has been remarkably effective in quashing science to the contrary. Skeptical science is held to an unusually high standard for an emergent understanding while major issues of hidden methodologies and missing or even possibly cherry picked (whether by intent or by flawed methodology) data by mainstream researchers are ignored by IPCC partisans.

The science is not settled but I have little doubt that when it does settle, the current IPCC blessed climate models will not have survived without major revision.

You are right on target, Greg.

Training for bandwagon science was underway in 1969, when analysis of lunar samples from the Apollo Mission revealed a systematic enrichment of lightweight isotopes in the solar wind.

E.g., lightweight isotopes of xenon are enriched in the solar wind by 3.5% per mass unit, from the lightest isotope (Xe-124) to the heaviest isotope (Xe-136). Those results showed that the Sun sorts atoms by mass and selectively moves lightweight elements (H and He) and lightweight isotopes of each element (Xe-124) to the solar surface - covering it with H (91%) and He (9%).

By the '80's most scientists had been trained to seek grant funds as Pavlov's dogs had been trained to seek dog biscuits. That is why the scientific community continued to believe that Earth heat source is a giant ball of H heated by H-fusion after a 1983 paper used isotope data from lunar samples to show that iron (Fe) is the most abundant element inside the Sun.

Other data confirming that planet Earth is heated by neutron repulsion in the solar core are now posted in a file on the new Google Group that Kirt Griffin established on "Neutron Repulsion: An Alternative Energy."

The way I see it: the search for scientific truth and non-truth can't trump everything. I would prefer that we followed a goal of drastically reducing pollution (in all areas, not just "greenhouse gas emissions"), rather than worry about whether CO2 emissions is the major reason for "recent" climate change.

Whether we are at fault for climate change or not, think of the benefits we would see if we chose to (continue to) blame ourselves in the short term and make positive changes, even if based on an incomplete, inaccurate, or incorrect model. The cost of doing nothing could be tremendous.

Do we all agree that cutting CO2 emissions is good? Yes? Do we agree that CO2 emissions are causing climate change? No. In this case, who cares? Let's cut CO2 emissions, and reap the benefit.

In response to stevebraun1

Hi Steve, whilst I agree with and have in fact been involved with reducing real pollution, I do not see CO2 as a pollutant. It is simply plant food. It not toxic and has no adverse effects at the sort of concentrations we have or can expect over the next century by which time we are constantly told the hydrocarbons will be exhausted. Even if CO2 reached 1000 ppm, it would not be toxic and still represent only a few percent of the relatively minor greenhouse effect (The flea on the elephant).

I am at a loss to understand where this odd classification of CO2 as a pollutant comes from. CO2 is the result of the efficient combustion of hydrocarbon fuels to provide us with the ease and convenience of 21st century life and plants love it. We exhale CO2, it even makes our drinks fizzy and acts as the coolant in Advanced Gas Nuclear Reactors. Now CO (carbon monoxide) is a different matter altogether and is a pollutant but its quantity is very small in modern efficient combustion processes for transport, power and industry.

The prohibitive costs of large scale reductions in CO2 emissions are already costing us dearly in the UK and the latest estimates top £18 billion pa for 40 years. This is to my mind complete lunacy when we consider the alternative, and far more necessary, uses for that money. CO2 reduction is just a political excuse to control, tax and regulate with no discernable benefit to the people.

A long list of comments indeed and following the debate is ... demanding.

Whether one agrees with the view that global warming is anthropologically induced or not, I would like to say I enjoy dictating the order of my immediate surrounds, and won't ever hesitate to frown at the otherwise unnecessary inflation of entropy which nature and beast would otherwise impose if my DNA wasn't around.

Do we all agree that cutting CO2 emissions is good? Yes? Do we agree that CO2 emissions are causing climate change? No. In this case, who cares? Let's cut CO2 emissions, and reap the benefit.

No. Cutting CO2 really does very little. Lindzen and Choi (2009), using ERBE satellite data, make a good case that CO2 sensitivity is bound by negative feedback from clouds such that there would be just 0.5 degC temperature increase from a CO2 doubling, compared to 1 degree were there no feedback, or the 2 to 5 (or even unbounded) degree increase the positive feedback IPCC-blessed models predict.

As fossil fuels become scarce and alternative power generation becomes cheaper, we'll be decreasing CO2 emissions naturally, without starving the world's poor by unnecessarily disrupting the world's economy. And the resultant temperatures will be indistinguishable from the natural variation which is currently so poorly understood.

Politics

It seems fairly obvious that the complexity of relationships between the factors that affect our climate are still a little beyond our full grasp. However my impression is that we would all be served well by a global shift in attitude towards our individual responsibility for reversing humankind's impact on nature as a whole. If global warming serves as a catalyst for this change in attitude, as it seems to do, there are clear benefits to this.

As long as we can keep people from taking radical measures based on poorly understood data, it does serve as an argument for politicians to rally the people against a common enemy and could have some real positive outcomes.

For the APS to go back to an uncertain stance towards global warming would only weaken peoples trust in scientists, as the phenomenon is so well embedded in common knowledge already.

It's my impression that this was a political decision, with good reasons behind it.

Let's just hope no-one starts painting the deserts white or try any of the other crackpot ideas to reverse the "problem".

Leaving aside climate modelling, controlling the global output of CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion is very much a 'good thing' - to state otherwise is asinine, from a scientific/engineering point of view. Or are people going to argue that making engines, power stations, etc more efficient is a waste of time? Physically reducing emissions, of any kind (be it solid or gaseous) is sensible: adding new taxes to forms of transport on the basis that 'they contribute to climate change', for example, just isn't.

Climate Fascism (A reply to fleshmx)

I agree that radical steps should not be taken to tackle a likely non-problem from CO2. The real problem is that a mindless UK Parliament influenced by an unsound but biased orthodoxy have ignored all warnings and already taken the suicidal decision to reduce CO2 emissions at a cost of £18 billion pa to the British taxpayer and consumer for the next 40 years.

The impression of 'near certainty' given by the scientific establishment backing AGW is bad for people's trust in science and scientists....like the little boy who cried wolf!

Most of us know it's just a weak hypothesis but many find that to oppose the bandwagon is just too risky. I pity future generations who will reap the harvest of the latter-day luddites in this, the age 'Age of Stupid. The APS has failed us all because if science means anything it has to mean truth and progress, not political convenience and retrogression to a bygone age….but the APS just joins the Royal Society and the rest on the bandwagon....What was it Hansen said...scientists have to decide to be honest or effective...where is the point in being effective in promoting dishonesty

As for politicians, of course they want to get everyone against a common enemy to justify their demand for power and control. CO2 is just an innocent gas but this is the same mindset that persecuted innocent people to provide a common enemy. Now motorists and people who earn their comforts and convenience are to be persecuted with tax, regulation and intrusion into their lives by 'carbon police.' This is not science fiction, They are here in UK councils now and not only do we have to suffer the creeping intrusion but we are paying for it too!

Leaving aside climate modelling, controlling the global output of CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion is very much a 'good thing' - to state otherwise is asinine, from a scientific/engineering point of view. Or are people going to argue that making engines, power stations, etc more efficient is a waste of time?

Asinine, indeed. If one is wanting to maximize efficiency, one needs to control the variables of interest, not indirect proxies. Automobile engine design has been driven towards fuel efficiency for years without a thought (appropriately so) towards CO2 minimization. However, when CO2 becomes a gas to be minimized, we have the truly silly prospect of carbon sequestration where the CO2 from combustion is directed somewhere besides the atmosphere, increasing the costs, to no demonstrably good effect.

Efficiency with respect to CO2 generation is a non-problem. As fossil fuels become more expensive, the market makes alternative energy sources more economically viable; this will always be the case.

The impression of 'near certainty' given by the scientific establishment backing AGW is bad for people's trust in science and scientists....like the little boy who cried wolf!

Hear, hear!

Science will be the big loser if climate alarmism crashes as I have been expecting. I just hope that a message of "many scientists were correct all along, just not the ones the politicians and journalists chose to listen to" will work to limit the damage.

THE PUBLIC ALREADY KNOWS . . .

The impression of 'near certainty' given by the scientific establishment backing AGW is bad for people's trust in science and scientists....like the little boy who cried wolf!

Hear, hear!

Science will be the big loser if climate alarmism crashes as I have been expecting.

Politicians and scientists deceived the public about many things that the public could not check - the origin, composition and source of energy of the Sun, the wisdom of investing public funds in LHC and fusion reactors, etc. - and then very foolishly predicted Earth's climate for the future.

Earth's climate did not follow the predictions of IPCC, Al Gore and the publicly-funded scientists who shared a Nobel Prize with them.

The entire scientific community will suffer the consequences.

As President Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Good to see carbon dioxide making a come back.

I have noticed some useful and interesting comments on this blog. Whilst it is a great pity that APS has its head in a dark place it is refreshing to read Rod Eaton's comments. Just for educational purposes I will add a bit of proxy data on CO2 in recent times (the last 600 million years) of Earth's history (from R.A Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)). Around 550myrs before present carbon dioxide levels were at around 7000ppm. Through most of the Paleozoic period levels fell bottoming out in the Carboniferous to Permian periods at close to what we have now. Then in the later Permian right through the Triassic and Jurassic carbon dioxide levels recovered to 2000-3000ppm. Levels have been dropping throughout the Cretaceous and the Tertiary. In fact we now have CO2 levels and temperatures similar to those at the Carboniferous/Permian boundary. Significantly for about 80% of the whole 600 million year period the average temperatures (see C.R Scotese www.scotese.com…climate.htm ) were around 22 degrees C. The other rather obvious fact is that there is no correlation between average temperatures and CO2 levels in the time period considered according to CO2 and temperature proxy data.

WHAT!!!

Proof without investigation...there is so much we have yet to prove yet we base much of our technology on these principles.Our observations have led us to these conclusions. (...)the Royal Society website. Probably the most prestigious scientific body on Earth. If even they have accepted the truth of global warming dont you think there is at least some truth in it?

Probably the most well worded and intelligent argument in dispelling global warming nay-sayers.I fully agree with these arguements and always try to keep an open mind about these arguements but evidence points overwhelmingly in favour of the 'Greenhouse Gas' theory.The least people could do is put aside personal predjudices for the good of the planets and it's inhabitants.Even if Global Warming is proven wrong with no reasonable doubt at least humanities technology will have evelved and we will hopefully humanity will be equipt with a much sytems and means of travel and to produce and use energy.It is counter productive to resist positive progress on a global scale

That is utterly ridiculous... you follow the truth

Proof without investigation...there is so much we have yet to prove yet we base much of our technology on these principles.Our observations have led us to these conclusions. In the same way that the doubters ask for proof of humanities impact upon the Earths climate give me proof we have no impact. Prove it is all the sun.As way of evidence I suggest you follow the link below and read this article. It is on the Royal Society website. Probably the most prestigious scientific body on Earth. If even they have accepted the truth of global warming dont you think there is at least some truth in it?

That is utterly ridiculous... you follow the truth

This is utterly ridiculous... you follow the truth not a title... There is enough evidence at the very least to make all the inhabitatnts of earth take a hard look and realize we are being duped. The is a human rights issue and we are being taxed under the guise of cap and trade to line the pockets of a few... we as people need to stop burying our heads in the sand saying well they are prestigious so thinking is no longer needed... ridiculous...

Proof without investigation...there is so much we have yet to prove yet we base much of our technology on these principles.Our observations have led us to these conclusions. In the same way that the doubters ask for proof of humanities impact upon the Earths climate give me proof we have no impact. Prove it is all the sun.As way of evidence I suggest you follow the link below and read this article. It is on the Royal Society website. Probably the most prestigious scientific body on Earth. If even they have accepted the truth of global warming dont you think there is at least some truth in it?

So basically since we have more cars then we have more emmisions so the Global warming issue must be right... LOL So by your rational cars are the problem and if we just stop driving everyting will be alright... LOL

I see some similarity between the decision of APS and the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi - that is the principle of simplicity. Of course, this was preached by several Indian leaders in the past and Gandhi is latest. But, today, we are forgetting this principle and everyone is trying to purchase TATA's Nano-car. In my own city, Pune, from Maharashtra the number of cars has increased very largely. This leads to excessive consumption of fossil-fuel, air pollution - apart from traffic problems and wastage of man-hours. I could have purchased car 20 years back - "without" taking loan from a bank. But I did not and will not purchase a car because I do not want to add to global warming - and this I tell to my students also. So I am happy with the decision of APS.

A Reasoned Perspective

It seems to me there are some excellent posts on this site from Oliver, Greg, Peter et al.

In summary, we cover a range of topics in the climate change debate. We highlight some of the arguments, which evidence in favour of a more open approach to the debate and the possible causes of Earth's warming and cooling trends.

The word 'consensus' is misleading, implying that there is no challenge when clearly there is. Even amongst those who are minded to accept AGW, there are differing opinions on extent, outcomes and what may or may not need to be done, or indeed can be done realistically.

My thoughts are that it would be a really redeeming start if bodies such as the Institute of Physics, APS, Institute of Engineering and Technology and many other professional and public bodies, including the highly politicised LGA made a statement on the lines of:

"As a scientific / professional / public body we recognise that there is a bedrock of support in the scientific community for the hypothesis of AGW. However, we also recognise that this is not a consensus view and a significant number of well qualified scientists, technologists and other professionals challenge the current orthodoxy, offer alternative hypotheses, and / or dispute the projected alarmist effects of climate change. We welcome the open debate on this broad issue in the interests of science, public information, prudent policies and progress."

Would that be the statement of a reasonable and open minded scientific / public body honestly reflecting the current situation?

APS MAY WANT TO CONSIDER A . . .

Lord Monckton has referred to this bastion of secret data hidden away by the UK Met Office by hiding behind the Official Secrets Act.

. . PROOF AGAINST ALL ARGUMENTS

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer

Wisdom

Once again the wisdom of an eminent professor. Will the APS committee recognise the eror of its ways? As with much of the establishemnt, Climategate will be a severe embarassment to the APS but I am not holding my breath for it to reverse its position. Backing the wrong hypothesis as the APS and Royal Society have done becomes a reputational issue for them.

The phrase 'Don't bother us with the facts, we've made up our minds' is the unfortunate current position of a tunnel vision scientific establishment. Can even a revelation like Climategate rock the AGW booat? We can but live in hope for the credibility of science and its practitioners to be restored.